Public Safety Committee on Nov. 22nd, 2010

[Barrett Fraser]

I would just like to touch on that, if I may, with the doubling of the waiting period, for lack of a better term. I'm a 42-year-old man. It takes approximately five to seven years under present legislation to get a pardon. If you're going to double that, does that mean I am going to be maybe 67 when I finally get a pardon, if it's arbitrarily decided that I get one? What happens during that period of retirement? Where does the value of that pardon go? If I'm out of the workforce, if my primary motivation is to feed and provide for my family and pay my bills and to further my career as far as I possibly can, if I'm going to be possibly past the age of retirement to get my pardon, my pardon has no value now. It really becomes a piece of paper.

I don't mean to be harsh on this, but I agree with Mr. Hutton. The legislation does not need to be changed. It's somewhat of a shame that resources such as these have to be utilized for something like this. I will look at it from my perspective, just as an individual. Two high-profile individuals have really been the catalyst behind this, one being Mr. James, the other being Ms. Homolka. Neither is relevant in this particular situation, because those people.... If you believe in monsters, great. I believe in monsters too, but that's not what we're here to talk about.

How is this going to affect that 96% of people with criminal records, those people such as me, Chris, and Taz, who have got their lives together and have done everything right? All this particular piece of legislation is going to do is put up unnecessary barriers and unnecessary roadblocks, regardless of what particular socio-economic background, whatever your cultural background, wherever you are in your life. If you have a criminal record, this is going to affect you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.

We'll move to Mr. Davies, please.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I just want to express my deep appreciation to all of you for coming and sharing your stories, particularly those of you who have served time. It takes a lot of courage and I think it also shows Parliament and the Canadian public the success stories that occur in our corrections system. I think it's really important to hear from people like you who are doing so well in your lives. I commend you all.

One thing I've heard the government say quite often--and I might be paraphrasing--is that the best social security program is a job. I've heard the Conservative government say that on many occasions, and I think there's some truth in it. So I've already heard you talk about the importance of a pardon in getting employment, which I think is foundational. There are things, when you come out of prison, that I think you have to access. There's housing, there are mental health services, there are addiction services, there's connecting with community and family, and there are all sorts of really important things. But I think getting a job is one of the most critical pieces in helping to rebuild your life.

I'd like to hear briefly from each of you about how much difficulty you had getting a job and where a pardon fits in that process for you.

[Chris Courchene]

After I got out it took me about seven or eight months to get a job at BUILD, because I was straight-looking. I was barely on welfare.

I actually went into this company called Change Innovators, where they focus on your résumé. They help you with power words and stuff. Then my probation officer told me about this company named BUILD. I went with them. They gave me a shot. I had an interview on a Friday and I started on Monday. I started at $8 an hour and I stayed with them for about six and a half months. Then I was in school. I got my level one, my grade 12, and then I came back as a construction supervisor. I started teaching ex-cons how to be like me, how to become a productive member of society.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Taz, did you want to say something?

[Mumtaz Muhammed]

Can you repeat the question?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

How a pardon would work in terms of your future job prospects and how important that would or wouldn't be in terms of you getting a good job.

[Mumtaz Muhammed]

As I stated before, I've received employment through OFE, to work with people with disabilities. That's a very rewarding job, and I could provide for my family with that.

Without having a pardon, it wouldn't allow me to get such jobs. I'd basically be a labourer or a janitor, where there's nothing to progress to. I'd be stuck where I am, I guess, from now until I die, and I would like to make changes.

It doesn't necessarily prove anything to the world, but getting a pardon proves to me that I am forgiven, in a sense, that people do make mistakes and everyone does deserve a chance. I need that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thanks.

I want to also get your opinions on the name change. This bill proposes to change the name “pardon” to “suspension of record”. I'm wondering, as people who have probably spent a fair bit of time thinking about the day when you may get a pardon, what your feelings or thoughts are on that name change.

[Barrett Fraser]

I think the name change is foolish. I think you'd lose a tremendous amount of significance by calling it a record suspension. Pardon, to me, represents the complete circle, the closure of it. I have paid my debt to society, and that society has now acknowledged it and has basically wiped the slate clean with me. A record suspension still has the stigma attached to it: “Whoa, he has a suspended record. What did he do?”

People are biased. It's simply the nature of the beast. It's how we think. We're always going to think the worst until someone demonstrates the best.

When I take a look at record suspension as opposed to pardon, pardon is much more significant, in the fact that it's now my government that has pardoned me from my past behaviours and my past actions. They happened to put it in a folder, put it in a filing cabinet, and said, “Okay, you're good.” They've acknowledged that I've paid my debt to society.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

There are three of you here today. I suppose you must know other people who have spent time in prison. Can you tell this committee what the general experience on this would be among the people you know? Are you representative of what ex-offenders would be thinking about this, or can you even say?

[Barrett Fraser]

As I said, and I think I've said it several times, and I've said it to John and to other people, I'm not unique. I just decided that I'm going to speak up and I'll be a voice. I can't speak for anybody else. I'm not unique. I would guarantee that if we were betting people here, we would put money down on the fact that my thoughts are shared by hundreds if not tens of thousands of men and women who are locked up in institutions across this country.

At the end of the day, by altering this legislation, all that is going to happen is that you're going to turn around and you're going to stifle an opportunity to meet another ex-offender who could sit at this table and perhaps tell you his or her story or thoughts on some upcoming legislation that may or may not be related. That's ultimately what will happen if this changes. If you were to change this, I would not have this opportunity to sit here and speak to you right now.

The motivation level for each individual is unique as well. I can't say what motivates Mumtaz, as he can't say what motivates me. But at the end of the day, the one common goal that we all have, regardless of whether you are sitting in a cell or I am sitting home on the couch with my wife now, is that we all want that day to come when we have no more biases, no more raised eyebrows, and our records have been cleared.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

We know that this legislation--

[The Chair, Conservative, Kevin Sorenson]

Mr. Davies, we're at seven and a half minutes.

We'll move to Mr. McColeman.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I would like to thank everyone for being here today, and in particular Mr. Muhammed and Mr. Fraser and Mr. Courchene.

One of the most significant parts of this bill that we've had comments about already is the fact that what matters to a lot of Canadians and victims is that if this were to pass, individuals who commit a sexual offence involving a child would be ineligible to receive a pardon. These sexual offences would include things like child pornography, luring a child, and sexual exploitation of a person with a disability, among others. Clearly, they are some of the more heinous crimes imaginable committed.

As we know, obtaining a pardon comes with benefits. As you've said, it helps with employment opportunities, it helps when travelling to another country, and in some cases it would assist with child custody hearings, visitation rights, etc. Would you agree that most Canadians consider a pardon to be a privilege and not a right? I think your comments have indicated that today, that it is clearly a privilege that you're working toward.

Did you consider the pardon system, before we enacted Bill C-23A in the spring session--primarily motivated because of the Homolka situation--a system where the parole board did not have the authority to deny pardons in cases that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, to have been adequate?

Your comments today say not to change anything, yet this particular situation was so heinous, and the parole board could not deny that individual a pardon. Do you think that's adequate?

Please go ahead, Mr. Fraser or Mr. Muhammed.

[Barrett Fraser]

I have some very strong feelings. I don't necessarily share the same feelings as all the members of the board of the John Howard Society. I think Karla Homolka is a monster. She should never have gotten out of prison, and that's it.

I have an interesting insight, as I played hockey for Graham James as a young man. It's so very bizarre. I'll never forget the day when my father told me that I was not going to play for that man any more. I believe in monsters.

Give the power to the parole board to make that decision. That's really what needs to be done. Look at every person as an individual when that comes through, instead of rubber-stamping them like they possibly were. I don't know. But I do know that some people, and this is just my opinion, are incorrigible, are beyond help. But you know what--that's maybe 1%.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

I want to carry on with that thinking.

In other words, the existing legislation was not adequate, and Parliament needed to do something in that situation to give the parole board some latitude to make a decision so that the administration of justice in that situation was carried out properly.

The minister was here, and he said that if we can come to some kind of discussion and agreement, perhaps, on the three indictable offences and come up with a system that says yes, you can have five indictable offences, as one of you described, he's prepared to listen. We have to work on that as a committee, perhaps, to better that.

Having said that, the thing we're looking at here is that we need to clearly focus on the type of people.... And they are the repeat offenders. They are the most heinous people, and we're trying to focus this legislation on them.

You seem to think that's funny, Mr. Hutton, so maybe you'd like to answer.

[John Hutton]

The most heinous people. Sorry, these are the people you're talking about: Chris Courchene, Barrett Fraser, and Taz Muhammed. These are the repeat offenders.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Well, if you think they are, maybe we should have more background--I don't know whether you want to share it with us--in terms of the crimes they committed and the victims left behind in those crimes.

[John Hutton]

I guess the point is that you're bringing up legislation that's already been passed, Bill C-23A. If I were in front of this committee in June--I didn't have that opportunity--I would have said that I didn't think any changes were necessary, that it's bad policy to change law based on the most heinous example. But those changes were made. Those changes were made to deal with Karla Homolka and Graham James, for better or for worse.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Okay, I'm going to interrupt you here, because I only have limited time.

I'd like to know something from the people here who are looking to have pardons, the three individuals who have criminal records. I assume that there were victims in the crimes you committed. Would you object to them providing evidence, their comments, and their impact statements to a parole board at a pardon hearing?

[Barrett Fraser]

I have nothing to hide. I was a property offender. I sold schedule II drugs--steroids--and I committed fraud. So I would be classified as a non-violent offender. Some people would say that my crimes were almost victimless. I don't believe that. There's a victim in every crime.

That being said, I had a victim impact statement read to me at my parole hearing many, many years ago. It was devastating to everyone in the room, including the victim, including me. If it was something I had to go through again to ensure that I would get a pardon, absolutely. I made the mistakes. The consequences are still there. At the end of the day, yes.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

How about the other gentlemen?

[Chris Courchene]

I would have no problem with that. I did robberies with weapons, right? I scared people in stores, and I've stolen things, and I've taken stuff that wasn't mine. If they came to court like they did last time and told me what happened and how they felt and wanted to hear an apology, I would definitely say yes. I'm sorry. I went to jail. I paid my time. I am sorry. I gave you guys four years of my life to show you how sorry I am. I said that I'm guilty. I'm sorry.

[Phil McColeman, Conservative, Brant, ON]

Mr. Muhammed.